SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(AP) 374

MOTILAL B.NAIK
Pidathala Ranga Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Kurnool Municipality – Respondent


MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 79 of 1985 dated 9-12-1987 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, kurnool.

( 2 ) THE first appellant (since died) was the plaintiff in the suit who filed the same against the respondent-Municipality seeking a declaration that the proposed enhancement of house tax from Rs. 891-52 ps. per half year to Rs. 3209- 50 ps. per half year for the building D. No. 40/317-D Kurnool is illegal and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from collecting the enhanced tax.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the building isused for non-residential purpose as a hotel. It was assessed to tax half yearly for Rs. 891 -50 ps on an annual rental value of Rs. 5,600/ -. While so, the defendant-Municipality issued a special notice dated 22-3-1982 proposing to enhance the tax to Rs. 3566. 10 ps. per half year. As against the said notice, the plaintiff preferred a revision petition before the Municipal Authority. The defendant-Municipality reduced the tax from Rs. 3566. 10ps. to Rs. 3209/-per half year. It is the case of the plaintiff that there was no addition or improvement to t



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top